251 



calls, than to obtain information for the support anil elucidation of 

 that bill yet his disclaimer is not explicit. 



At the preceding session of Congress, as Chairman of a Commit 

 tee of the House Of Representatives, he had made a report recom 

 mending the establishment of a territory at the mouth of Columbia 

 river. He now states, that at that time, in conversation at his 

 lodgings with some of his friends, upon the subject of that report, 

 and upon the value of the fur trade of our western waters, the 

 wealth to be derived from that trade in the Canton market, and 

 the practicability of supplying the valley of the Mississippi with the 

 manufactures of that route, one gentleman observed, that the Mis 

 sissippi had been discussed at Ghent, and from the characters of the 

 gentlemen engaged in it, there was a strong probability that if Mn 

 Floyd had that correspondence, he would obtain something which 

 might be useful to him. Upon which he immediately determined to 

 make the call, as a proper mode of getting the papers, but after 

 wards determined to postpone the call until the next session. 



Mr. Floyd has not informed the public, who it was that made the 

 suggestion to him, upon which he determined to call for the Ghent 

 correspondence ; but it was a person who knew that the Mississip 

 pi had been discussed at Ghent, and who, by suggesting this idea to 

 Mr. Floyd, sufficiently manifested the disposition that the corres 

 pondence containing the discussion of the Mississippi at Ghent, 

 should be brought before the public. 



Mr. Floyd s projected bill might be an occasion to obtain this ob 

 ject, but where so much was known about the discussion of the Mis 

 sissippi at Ghent, other purposes, besides the occupation of Co 

 lumbia river, the fur trade, or the Canton market, were doubtless 

 contemplated in stimulating the call for the correspondence. I do 

 not mean to complain of such motives, if they were partaken by 

 Mr. Floyd : but while influenced by them, he cannot claim the 

 privilege of impartiality, with reference to this inquiry, nor should 

 he have appealed to the public, as if he had been injured by me, 

 for merely stating the fact, that the call of the House for Mr. Rus 

 sell s letter, had been moved for at the suggestion of Mr. Russel! 

 himself. By Mr. Floyd s own showing, his first call for the Ghent- 

 papers, had been suggested to him. He does not deny that the call 

 for Mr. Russell s letter was suggested to him, and he might have 

 added, even, that his coming forward in the Richmond Enquirer, 

 in aid of Mr. Russell, had been suggested to him by the editors of 

 that paper.* 



The motives now alleged by Mr. Floyd for his call of 17th Ja 

 nuary, 1822, could not lead him to the suspicion, that there would 

 be any reluctance in the Executive to furnish all the documents 

 that could be useful to him for his Columbia river bill ; nor does it 

 indeed appear, that on the 16th of January, 1822, when he moved 

 the resolution, he suspected, or had reason to suspect, there would 

 be any difficulty in obtaining all the papers upon the call. 



* ?ee the Richmond Enquirer of 2d August, 1822, 



